.svg)
The Indegenous was created with the goal to disperse knowledge about indigenous peoples. The African continent has over 1000 communities that identify as indigenous peoples or tribal.
This dataset takes a critical realism approach by examining the definition of ‘indigenous person’ as dictated by political entities versus an ontological examination of the identity of an ‘indigenous person’.
The way we at the Indegenous define ‘indigenous peoples’ is based on a cultural view rather than a governmentally recognized scheduled tribe approach. That is why there are inclusions of indigenous peoples that do not yet have ‘scheduled tribe’ status. This approach might be considered as biased or incomprehensive since there are complexities in hierarchy and relationships between different tribal populations. There are several instances where due to insufficient data, it was difficult to include tribes that are perhaps sub tribes or clans of other tribes. There is also a discrepancy in the way tribal populations view themselves, versus the way that they are viewed through literature written by ‘outsiders’. By an ‘outsider’, we refer to the researcher trained in western research training that takes an approach of an observer without considering context or indigenous sentiment. According to Indigenous scholars, western research training requires adaptation to fit Indigenous contexts(Kovach, 2010; Simonds and Christopher, 2013; Wilson, 2008). Western research needs a significant process of decolonization for future research based on lessons learned from Indigenous community partners who voiced concern over methods of Western research (Smith, 1999; Tuck and Yang, 2012).
In order to decolonize the way research is conducted, we have included self reporting of information through blogs written by indigenous peoples since we agree with Ranjan Datta that decolonization “is a continuous process of anti-colonial struggle that honors Indigenous approaches to knowing the world, recognizing Indigenous land, Indigenous peoples, and Indigenous sovereignty”.
Therefore, we keep a comprehensive view of indigenous populations by designing an inclusion criteria that answers the following:
1. Do they self-identify as an indigenous community themselves?
2. Does this community have a distinct language? If yes, do they have dialects?
2. Are they known to have distinct traditions?
3. Do they celebrate distinct festivals and have rituals that can be differentiated?
4. Are their food habits and cuisines distinct?
5. Do they have a history of economic or cultural bias?
After the identification of indigenous tribes, we applied a mixed research approach of combining qualitative and quantitative data.
This dataset comprises of both primary data sources: interviews with indigenous peoples with their information mentioned on the sources section as well as secondary sources by conducting literature study of former research on these indigenous populations.
Notes to researchers about bias:
As far as it is possible, we have relied on National Census data to have an unbiased presentation of indigenous populations. However, as mentioned before, this is often incomplete due to many factors:
1. Lack of official government recognition
2. Minimal contact of indigenous populations with government entities
3. Lack of academically rigorous sociological research
Where government data isn’t available, we have relied on academic research, journal publications and newspaper articles. All sources have been noted in the sources section.
Where even academic research fails to suffice, we have relied on information found on self-identified blogs and NGO research. There is concern that accuracy of information in these cases may be reduced due to the lack of academic rigor in reporting. Therefore, researchers have been noted to use reasonable judgement before citing these sources. To make it easier, there is a comments section which notes when such cases occur.
This section is incomplete due to lack of sources and is subject to review. Where it hasn’t been noted, the official sources of population data comes from the 2011 Government of India census. Otherwise, the source of population information is written under the comments section.
There are instances where a tribe is either a family of tribes of a subtribe of another. These have been a source of complexity that this dataset fails to address. We recognize that there may have been reductions made in these cases. Specific cases have been noted in the comments and other names sections. Additionally, in the other names section, we have written the clans or sub-tribes as other names.
Tribal family relationships are extremely complex and may not be classifiable by state or region or even languages.
For example, there are Mizo tribes that we struggled to find information about. From our knowledge, some of them are not tribes in themselves but rather clans that can be traced back to a single family which further distinguished themselves from their relatives through an inheritance based history rather than through sociologically proven methods.
Due to the nature of this database, it was not possible for us to show hierarchical structures and therefore this field of researh remains to be undertaken. This type of research is not quantifiable but rather to be done as case studies. We welcome any and all discussions, opinions and corrections of the data we have cited.
References:
Kovach, M (2010) Indigenous Methodologies. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Simonds, VW, Christopher, S (2013) Adapting western methods to Indigenous contexts. American Journal of Public Health 103(12): 2185–2192.
Smith, LT (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.
Tuck, E, Yang, KW (2014) R-words: Refusing research. In: Paris, D, Winn, MT (eds) Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry with Youth and Communities. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 223–247
Wilson, S (2008) Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Winnipeg, MB: Fernwood.
The Indegenous was created with the goal to disperse knowledge about indigenous peoples. Out of all indigenous populations in the world, the African continent is often overlooked. In line with our attempts to
We are releasing this dataset for researchers and students who are interested in sociological research about African populations. The motivation for compiling this dataset comes from the finding that there is a lack of comprehensive and harmonized data sources on the internet about indigenous populations.
In the context of African indigenous peoples, most information comes from their former colonizers and ‘first hand voice’ is often missing. The strong link with the views of indigenous Africans as an uncivilized population comes from the “cultural gaze” literature reviews written by occidental researchers. Adeshina Afolayan writes: “The violence of the Western gaze on Africa led several ethnological and anthropological excavations of Africa's cultural beingness”. We believe that it creates a narrative that is misrepresentative of the rich cultural history and traditions of Africa. The complexity of the continent is hard to capture in a single database. This is a working database, which is in no means complete or comprehensive. The limitations of this body of work is discussed below.
Globally, indigenous peoples are identified in terms of colonialism as the original peoples of a land, having distinct cultures and ways of life. For the purpose of this database, we use the UN definition of indigenous peoples.
“What did it mean to various people and ethnic groups across these individual African countries to be brought under these foreign concepts of church, flag, nation state, government, parliament, and army? From independence, the systems that we adopted and inherited without question gazed to the West, and venerated all things Western.” - Socrates Mbamalu(2021)
We believe that this definition of indigenous peoples in the African context with respect to land does not necessarily hold true for all populations because several indigenous peoples are migratory and cannot be confined to a particular geographical state or region. In the African context, ethnic and tribal entities are often intertwined. Several tribal groups are subgroups of a former African kingdom of the same ethnicity. In other contexts, it is vice versa. Multiple tribal families created alliances with each other to create kingdoms that created an overall ethnicity. In some cases, ethnical majorities have assimilated tribal identities completely and those groups exist only in historical contexts. In other words, those tribal populations as a cultural group are extinct.
In addition, complexity in categorisation also exists because of pastoralist lifestyles of several indigenous communities in Africa. It is not recommended to classify these populations through geographical presence. Especially when taken into context the historical polity of “democratic nation state” imposed by European idealisms, geographical categorisation fails to capture true pastoral nomadism.
This dataset takes a critical realist approach. In general, we adopted the UN definition as a working definition for the purpose of our work.
• Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
• Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies
• Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
• Distinct social, economic or political systems
• Distinct language, culture and beliefs
• Form non-dominant groups of society
• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities.
This approach might be considered as biased or uncomprehensive since there are complexities in hierarchy and relationships between different tribal populations. There are several instances where due to insufficient data, it was difficult to include tribes that are perhaps sub tribes or clans of other tribes.
There is also a discrepancy in the way tribal populations view themselves, versus the way that they are viewed through literature written by ‘outsiders’. By an ‘outsider’, we refer to the researcher trained in western research training that takes an approach of an observer without considering context or indigenous sentiment. According to Indigenous scholars, western research training requires adaptation to fit Indigenous contexts(Kovach, 2010; Simonds and Christopher, 2013; Wilson, 2008). Western research needs a significant process of decolonization for future research based on lessons learned from Indigenous community partners who voiced concern over methods of Western research (Smith, 1999; Tuck and Yang, 2012).
In order to decolonize the way research is conducted, we have included self reporting of information through blogs written by indigenous peoples since we agree with Ranjan Datta that decolonization “is a continuous process of anti-colonial struggle that honors Indigenous approaches to knowing the world, recognizing Indigenous land, Indigenous peoples, and Indigenous sovereignty”.
The sources of information for each of the tribes can be found on the dataset itself on every entry.
Tribe: Name of tribe
Countries of presence: this dataset only consists of tribes from Africa but there are instances of migration within some communities. These have been noted in this variable.
Population number: a numerical variable, coming from census data, when it exists. Otherwise, it comes from blogs.
Male: Female Ratio: a numerical variable, gaps exist in reporting. Mostly missing information.
Other Names: Colloquially known or written, former names and names of sub clans and sub tribes.
Language: Family of language and origin, sometimes also notes structure and dialect forms.
Festivals: a discussion on the various festivals distinct to the community: a descriptive variable
Food habits: descriptive variable about various cuisines
Traditional Dress: descriptive variable
Handicrafts: descriptive variable
Famous personalities: noted personas from the tribe under concern.
Sources: links to source of info.
Comments: descriptive section on nuances with data sources
This dataset has been developed through a critical review of the extant literature about the indigenous groups. Notes to researchers about bias:
As far as it is possible, we have relied on National Census data to have an unbiased presentation of indigenous populations. However, as mentioned before, this is often incomplete due to many factors:
Lack of official government recognition
Minimal contact of indigenous populations with government entities
Lack of academically rigorous sociological research
Where government data isn’t available, we have relied on academic research, journal publications and newspaper articles. All sources have been noted in the sources section.
Where even academic research fails to suffice, we have relied on information found on self-identified blogs and NGO research. There is concern that accuracy of information in these cases may be reduced due to the lack of academic rigor in reporting. Therefore, researchers have been noted to use reasonable judgement before citing these sources. To make it easier, there is a comments section which notes when such cases occur.
For the African database of indigenous populations, there is a real gap in reporting. Several populations are nomadic and therefore their populations vary, between countries and time periods. This section is incomplete due to lack of sources and is subject to review. Where it hasn’t been noted, the official sources of population data comes from government statistical reporting websites. Otherwise, the source of population information is written under the comments section.
There are instances where a tribe is either a family of tribes or a subtribe of another: instances like these have been a source of complexity and ambiguity that this dataset has been unable to address thoroughly. We recognize that there may have been simplifications made in these cases. Specific cases have been noted in the comments and other names sections. Additionally, in the other names section, we have reported the clans or sub-tribes as other names. In some places, different spellings or pronunciations of the tribe's name have also been reported.
For the most part, referencing indigenous African populations in English is derivative. The spellings of tribes in the English language vary between sources. In one instance, there are two tribes that are distinct but have the same names.
These gaps in understanding African cultures, histories and polity is a real limitation. Significant progress in sociological research needs to be made, keeping in mind the biases that western research methodologies perpetuate. There are instances where two terms are interchangeably used for a tribe but there is no evidence that the two terms are actually for one tribe.
For the festivals column, there have been instances where certain festivals are specific to the country of residence and not specific to the tribe. The same festivals are celebrated by all the tribes residing in the particular country.
There are also instances where the same terminology has been used to refer to indigenous communities that have completely different origins and belong from different clusters of language families. For instance, there are four cases of Lele tribes belonging to four different regions and following distinct languages. They are:
The Lele(s) of Burkina Faso. They belong to the Grusi cluster of ethno-linguistic groups who follow the Gur (Voltaic) branch of Niger-Congo language family. However, there is difficulty in establishing distinct language boundaries as the result of a gradual and continuous migration of peoples that has produced a complex pattern of merged ethnic groups.
The Lele(s) of Guinea and Sierra Leone. They are said to have resided in their present location for the past three centuries. However, they seem to be ethnically assimilated and absorbed by the neighbouring Manding and Kissi people(s). They speak a Malinke language.
The Lele(s) of Chad. They are a small ethnic group, constituting about 3.5% of the total population of Chad*. They speak a Chadic language.
The Lele(s) of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Alternatively also referred to as Bashilele or Leele**. They are an independent ethnic group that live along the Kasai river and are considered a part of the larger Kuba kingdom. They are a Bushoong speaking people which is part of the Bantu family of languages.
Afolayan, A. (2018). The ethnocentric gaze: From ethnology to ethnophilosophy to “Africa.” South African Journal of Philosophy, 37(3), 312–321.
Mbamalu, S. (2021, January 4). The Western Gaze: Why should the West validate African realities? This is africa. Retrieved November 18, 2021, from https://thisisafrica.me/african-identities/the-western-gaze-why-should-the-west-validate-african-realities/.
Olson, James S. 1996. The People of Africa: An Ethnohistorical Dictionary. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Grusi." Encyclopedia Britannica, February 9, 2007.
Kovach, M (2010) Indigenous Methodologies. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Simonds, VW, Christopher, S (2013) Adapting western methods to Indigenous contexts. American Journal of Public Health 103(12): 2185–2192.
Smith, LT (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.
Tuck, E, Yang, KW (2014) R-words: Refusing research. In: Paris, D, Winn, MT (eds) Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry with Youth and Communities. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 223–247
Wilson, S (2008) Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Winnipeg, MB: Fernwood.
